Anti-feats?

[Tiama'at]

Yes, but Tiama'at, none of us have as big a penis as you.

(Long time no see! What brings you to ENWorld, T-apostrophe?)

The penis size is just a side benefit.

IT just comes from being able to say 'no'. Just because it's in a rulebook does not mean it's at the table. You have the extra benefit of knowing that d20 players are NOT exactly a rare commodity (unlike other systems), so turning away a munchkin won't cost you much.

I came over with the flogging of the Tribe 8 d20 stuff (I wrote that part of the book) and stayed for the beer & b-----s.

- Ma'at

 

[Tonguez]

But it wouldn't really make sense. In order to be hideously ugly, you need to have charisma 15+? WTF?!?

how else is a frog going to convince a princess to kiss it if it doesn't have a 15 Charisma?

and Charisma is the base stat for intimidate so 15+ for a Hideous disad. which also gave a +4 to intimidate checks seems fine.

I can see a system like this working if it uses a 'swapping out ' principle, even better if you follow LostSouls prereq system
eg with a 13+ Wis I can take Blindness and in return gain Scent sort of thing...

 

[Synicism]

Originally posted by emergent Thanks, kengar. I am not realy sure its a good idea, but wanted to at least look at it. I know I saw it somewhere -- maybe in a swashbuckler type book.

It was an option in Swashbuckling Adventures as a conversion system for the Arcana system from 7th Sea.

7th Sea lets you buy a virtue, or get points for taking a hubris. In the original game, you can activate a virtue to help you in a situation when that personality trait was relevant. The GM can activate a hubris to screw you up in a situation when the trait is relevant.

In Swashbuckling Adventures, virtues are feats. If you choose to take a hubris, you get an extra feat. Here are some examples:

Altruistic (Virtue) - once per day, you may activate your virtue to reroll any roll made while attempting to help someone else.

Arrogant (Hubris) - once per day, the GM can activate your Hubris in order to make you show disdain or contempt for someone else.

So yeah, the flaws can be pretty severe, considering that there is no way to resist their effects. Imagine, if you will, if someone (like the GM) decided to activate your Arrogant hubris while your character was, say, trying to convince a powerful archmage to help the party, or worse, to refrain from killing the party. Played kindly, they can make for interesting RP opportunities. Played mean, they can lead to the death of an entire party.

 

[Cheiromancer]

What if you had requirements that mirrored the same abilities that it penalized?

Such as a penalty to hit or damage requireing 15+ Str.

Or a Hideous disadvantage requireing 15+ Cha.

That might balance things out - because to get the bonus from the disadvantage, you have to hurt something that you're already good at.

That is brilliant. Sheer Genius. Could you develop some additional examples?

 

[LostSoul]

That is brilliant. Sheer Genius. Could you develop some additional examples?

No, but I can let that go to my head.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yeah, disadvantages are interesting, but if they exist they should be "built into" advantages, I guess.

Something like a feat that gives you a +4 to intimidate but a -4 to one other Cha-based skill is fairly OK, from a mechanical perspective....maybe even a bit weak.

...this is especially true if you follow the prereq system outlined above....

That seems pretty interesting, and not too abusable, since you're not letting them take anything they want for free (pairing it with a specific bonus and penalty takes a lot of the abusability, actually), and you have to make sure it'll actually hurt you...

Not too shabby. Far from perfect, but I think I like it the best. Seems balanced enough. It should probably stick to pretty obvious things (like skills)...

I could easily see Blindness being paired with a very limited Blindsight (say, 10') and requiring something like 8 raks in Spot and Search(because they become very useless after being blind)...

Not too bad at all!

 

[Ace]

I always hated the idea of getting disadvantages to gain more advantages. For any systems. I just hate it.

I am insanely fond of GURPS and I hate disadvantages too.

My solution was to let people play what they like but give them fixed points X+45 (the normal 40+5 disads and quirks) in GURPS

I wouldn't use them in D&D at all except for a luck point thing, like you get a luck point each time I use this drawback to hose you

 

[Cheiromancer]

No, but I can let that go to my head.

No, really. Maybe I'll end up putting this down to a fluke- kinda like a monkey at a typewriter producing a page or two of Shakespeare. But I'm hoping it's not just that. Tonguez's suggestions are the kind of thing I'm after; what kind of disadvantages do you see as being associated with a strong skill?

 

[hong]

I am insanely fond of GURPS and I hate disadvantages too.

My solution was to let people play what they like but give them fixed points X+45 (the normal 40+5 disads and quirks) in GURPS

And in fact, this is a published optional rule in Compendium I.

 

[LostSoul]

No, really. Maybe I'll end up putting this down to a fluke- kinda like a monkey at a typewriter producing a page or two of Shakespeare. But I'm hoping it's not just that. Tonguez's suggestions are the kind of thing I'm after; what kind of disadvantages do you see as being associated with a strong skill?

Honestly, I'd do it on a case-by-case basis, asking the PC what kind of disadvantage they want and figure out a proper set of requirements. I'm not familiar enough with disadvantages to give you a set of typical ones with typical requirements.